There has been a long tradition of political organising around planning that has taken place outside or in opposition to the state in the UK. However, what can loosely be termed ‘community-led planning’ (CLP) has often not been fully recorded. This chapter seeks to redress this absence. Drawing on insights from a three-year project investigating ‘Hidden Histories of Community-Led Planning’ since the 1960s, we consider how and why this rich history has been overlooked within mainstream planning history. In doing so, however, we also reflect that the notion of what is hidden from history is itself multilayered. Paying attention to the challenges our project faced in moving beyond an identifiable ‘canon’ of projects, places and people, we also consider what may be hidden within existing accounts of CLP, including the voices and experiences of women and racialised communities. We conclude by arguing that whilst these insurgent spaces offer an important counter-tradition capable of expanding the political horizons of planning in the UK, they are not immune from the privileging of certain forms of knowledge and expertise at the expense of other voices. We therefore argue for ongoing work to expand planning’s archive and build a critical planning historiography.

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Uncovering Hidden Histories of Community-Led Planning

  • Andy Inch,
  • Sue Brownill,
  • Debbie Humphry,
  • Deborah Broomfield

摘要

There has been a long tradition of political organising around planning that has taken place outside or in opposition to the state in the UK. However, what can loosely be termed ‘community-led planning’ (CLP) has often not been fully recorded. This chapter seeks to redress this absence. Drawing on insights from a three-year project investigating ‘Hidden Histories of Community-Led Planning’ since the 1960s, we consider how and why this rich history has been overlooked within mainstream planning history. In doing so, however, we also reflect that the notion of what is hidden from history is itself multilayered. Paying attention to the challenges our project faced in moving beyond an identifiable ‘canon’ of projects, places and people, we also consider what may be hidden within existing accounts of CLP, including the voices and experiences of women and racialised communities. We conclude by arguing that whilst these insurgent spaces offer an important counter-tradition capable of expanding the political horizons of planning in the UK, they are not immune from the privileging of certain forms of knowledge and expertise at the expense of other voices. We therefore argue for ongoing work to expand planning’s archive and build a critical planning historiography.